Sentences with phrase «start arguments with»

During one playthrough I had a character who was a big fan of hitting the bottle and would start arguments with community members when moral was low.

I think when you start an argument with «my religion / God / belief system is the only one» you open yourself up to some comments that may try to point you towards the fact that all religions have their faults.

He started an argument with my wife, who was still holding our 9 - month - old.

On the pitch, he can start an argument with his shadow.

If your child is trying to start an argument with you, don't keep it going.

They start an argument with you, or give you an eye roll and a «Whatever.»

«If you start an argument with coldness or accusations, the interaction will likely end with that — and likely to an elevated degree,» she explains.

Written By: Andrew Read If you ever want to start an argument with an endurance athlete, simply mention strength training.

Always start your argument with a short roadmap.

So, I'm trying to start an argument with you so tell me if I'm wrong.

If you start an argument with the obnoxious lawyer, you are walking into the trap he has set for you.

My boyfriend always starts a argument with me over little things he's cheated on me before but I forgived him should I carry this on?

When an individual constantly expects others to behave negatively, he or she responds to conflict in ways that undermine the relationship.5 For example, your brother may start an argument with your sister - in - law about her use of the «cold shoulder» technique because he is frustrated that she won't directly tell him what she is upset about.

He may resist when she asks him to take out the trash and may start an argument with her about an unrelated topic later in the evening.

At the same time, U.S. trade officials have started arguments with several of the country's largest trading partners, driving up prices for materials like lumber and steel.

Not exact matches

«It smacked of an institution starting with a conclusion and shaping any arguments to fit it.»

Before this starts to sound like the annual lecture from management — perhaps you're one of those corporate employees forced to sleepwalk through an intranet quiz once in a while to prove to your higher - ups that you're familiar with the company's code of conduct — consider DeMars's argument for the value of the ethical office from a personal standpoint: «In order to live happily and at peace with ourselves, we have to live in ways that are congruent with our morals,» she argues.

So instead of jumping right to the end of your argument, start with statements or premises you know your audience will agree with.

While I don't think I'll start using a debit card, I can see a good argument for spending cash, especially with businesses you trust.

With the unemployment rate down to five percent and the Fed embarked on a tightening cycle, the argument runs, indicators will start returning to earlier, higher growth trends.

If the TAM provided sales reps with this head start, I think you could make a strong argument it would give your company a strategic advantage.

Since the argument is that this is the scientific way to do things, let me start with an example from serious science: pharmaceuticals.

ALLEN: I guess the other argument is, you can start as a founder with great instincts.

Harry Knox starts off his argument with this,»... costing our nation millions of dollars and many highly - trained soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines — including hundreds with critical language skills desperately needed in our ongoing fight against terrorism around the world...» I wonder why he would quantify those in which he is defending.

I'm done with you since you are clearly losing and starting to name - call, as you tend to do when you lose arguments.

Kaine started out with a version of the «personally opposed but publically supporting» argument based on the specious claim that the First Amendment of the Constitution prevents us from imposing our religious «values» on public life.

rea · son — noun / ˈrēzən / a.Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic — humans do not reason entirely from facts b.Find an answer to a problem by considering various possible solutions c.Persuade (someone) with rational argument — I tried to reason with her, but without success» I accept nothing on faith» can you prove we evolved from primates or that life started by random chance?

Start with the science that shows the humanity and individuality of the embryo, and then make philosophical arguments about the equality of all human beings as persons possessing inherent dignity.

Second, let me say that, if we go with your second argument, then we could say that we agree that all distinctions are not the ideal, but just disagree on when we should see, want to see, or start to see those distinctions disappear.

You start with an answer yourself... for argument sake we'll call it God... then you build your questions around that... ie; Answer: God Question: Who created the universe.

«In Internet slang, a troll (/ ˈtroʊl /, / ˈtrɒl /) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off - topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on - topic discussion.»

If you want to have a serious debate, you'll have to start engaging with the facts and arguments that have been presented rather than merely ignoring them and restating the same old arguments that you seem so desperate to believe.

Perhaps one of the most convincing arguments against religion is how nasty, hateful, vindictive and arrogant believers are when it comes to dealing with anyone who doesn't follow their cult, and how defensive and dismissive they become when you start asking probing, difficult to answer questions.

When we read Romans 13 by starting with Romans 12, we see Paul's argument developing.

Most Likely to Start an Argument Between You and Your Friends: Roger Olson with «Some Thoughts About Conversations / Debates Between Calvinists and Arminians» «It seems to me that most 5 point Calvinists I know seem bound and determined to believe anything they think the Bible says regardless of how horrific that may be.

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off - topic messages in an online community, either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.

It's the lying and deception that can destroy trust in these situations more than almost anything else, and the second episode even makes it a point to try and get that across through slapstick humor, until it ditches that initial argument altogether and starts becoming a wacky comedy in full with all of the usual trappings.

What is with the Christian backers of their god as soon as they are backed into a corner and they do not have a logical answer they come back well after the fact and start the same BS arguments all over again.

You may not have changed the difeintion, but you are certainly NOT using the accepted definition I found on over 12 sites, including religious ones, so start with the correct definition, and you will see you causal chain argument is false.

To get a gauge of just how inane the belief in creationism / intelligent design is in the 21st Century, here are some areas they must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did not start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo - Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.

I could continue on with the vast majority of your post, but I am not here to start an argument.

The argument is fine if one is genetically engineering clones, but this possible range of diversity simple isn't expressed in actual reproduction; particularly when starting with only two individuals.

The starting point for this cyclical argument coincided with the Great War, as the years from 1914 to 1920 witnessed the emergence, the peak, and the collapse of Wilsonian idealism» an internationalism quite self - conscious in its moral assertiveness, in distinction from the Realpolitik internationalism of Theodore Roosevelt.

And since our arguments started with the word «obscure».

Here I am advocating a canonical approach on a practical basis: if we want a «level playing field» in debates about the Bible and war and peace, we need to start with a common definition of what constitutes the Bible, what can be quoted in the argument.

Yeah, because people will believe scientific arguments from a group that starts with a premise that life begins at conception.

Starting by acknowledging the true thread of the Guardian editorial: We have lost the argument with post-Enlightenment opinion - formers.

If we start with consciousness as a blank slate that then evolves (whether as an individual or as a species) to adapt to the necessities of its self - preservation (as an individual or as a species), we will never get to an argument for the goodness of fidelity, fecundity, etc..

The book was filled with disjointed fits and starts that tied up his argument and nearly strangled it.

One reason that «the question of universal death grows stale,» Robert Scheer has written, is that the arguments are couched in «terms that pointedly mute just what it is these bombs will do, which is, to start with, to kill the people one loves and nearly everyone else as well.»